Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 40–57 | Cite as

Adopting webcasts over time: the influence of perceptions and attitudes

  • Griet Lust
  • Jan Elen
  • Geraldine Clarebout
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Given the popularity of webcasts and their educational benefits as stressed in previous research, this paper investigates students’ acceptance and continued use of webcasts in an undergraduate course. Furthermore, the study explores the determinants of students’ webcast use by employing the well-validated Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) of Davis (MIS Quarterly 13(3):319–339, 1989). To this, a temporal dimension was added, as TAM focuses on students’ initial expectations and attitudes before using a tool. Hence, it remains unclear how these expectations and attitudes change when a student is exposed to the webcasts and how these changed perceptions and attitudes explain students’ continued use. The current study attempts to address this by capturing both students’ initial expectations and attitudes prior to exposure and their perceptions and attitudes during exposure. Students’ (n = 120) webcast usage was captured by logging the number of hits and the duration spent viewing the webcasts. Results reveal that, although many students accepted webcasts, only a few continued to use them. Contrary to the TAM model, students’ initial adoption was not influenced by their initial attitudes and expectations. Students’ continued use was only influenced by their perceptions of usefulness. This data illustrates that, although students were positive towards the webcasts, they only used them after they acknowledged the functionality of such a tool in supporting the learning process.

Keywords

Webcasts TAM Individual differences Temporal 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research has been made possible due to a grant from the National Science Foundation- Flanders (FWO) FWO-grant G.0408.09.

References

  1. Acharya, C. (2003). NUCast survey. Paper presented at the conference on human factors in computing systems, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved August 22, 2010 from https://team.nus.edu.sg/cdtl/staff/Research/CDTLMSNo_4.pdf.
  2. Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments, problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectations-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bongey, S. B., Cizaldo, G., & Kalnbach, L. (2006). Explorations in course-casting: Podcasts in higher education. Campus-wide Information Systems, 23(5), 350–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brotherton, J., & Abowd, G. (2004). Lessons learned from eclass: Assessing automated capture and access in the classroom. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 11(2), 121–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan, A. Y., Chow, K., & Jia, W. (2003). A Framework for evaluation of learning effectiveness in online courses. In R. W. Lau, Q. Li, R. Cheung, & W. Liu (Eds.), Advances in web-based learning -ICWL 2005 (Vol. 2783, pp. 383–395). Hong Kong, China: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cho, V., Cheng, E. T., & Lai, J. W. (2009). The role of perceived user-interface design in continued usage intention of self-paced e-learning tools. Computers & Education, 53(2), 216–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.Google Scholar
  9. Copley, J. (2007). Audio and video podcasts of lectures for campus-based students: Production and evaluation of student use. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(4), 387–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cramer, K. M., Collins, K. R., Snider, D., & Fawcett, G. (2007). The virtual lecture hall: Utilization, effectiveness and student perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Using web-based pedagogical tools as scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33(5), 513–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, users perceptions, and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Day, J., & Foley, J. (2006). Evaluating web-lectures: A case study from HCI. Paper presented at the conference on human factors in computing systems, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved August 22, 2010 from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1125493.
  15. Doll, W. J., Hendrickson, A., & Deng, X. (1998). Using Davis’s perceived usefulness and ease of use instruments for decision making: a confirmatory and multigroup invariance analysis. Decision Sciences, 29(4), 839–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. Review of Research in Education, 5, 392–431.Google Scholar
  17. Evans, C. (2008). The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher education. Computers & Education, 50(2), 491–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fazio, R. H., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1978). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency: An information processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(1), 48–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Freeman, M. (1998). Video conferencing: a solution to the multi-campus large classes problem? British Journal of Educational Technology., 29(3), 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldberg, H. R., & McKhann, G. M. (2000). Student test scores are improved in a virtual learning environment. Advances in Physiological Education, 23(1), 59–66.Google Scholar
  22. Green, S. M., Voegeli, D., Harrison, M., Philips, J., Knowles, J., Weaver, M., et al. (2003). Evaluating the use of streaming video to support student learning in a first-year life science course for student nurses. Nurse Education Today, 23(4), 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis, a global perspective (Seventh ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Harley, D., Henke, J., Lawrence, S., McMartin, F., Maher, M., Gawlik, M., et al. (2003). Costs, culture, and complexity: An analysis of technology enhancements in a large lecture course at UC Berkeley. Retrieved August 22, 2010 from University of California, Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education. http://repositories.cdlib.org/cshe/CSHE3-03.
  25. Hew, K. F. (2009). Use of audio podcast in K-12 and higher education: A review of research topics and methodologies. Educational Technology Research Development, 57(3), 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hung, H., & Cho, V. (2008). Continued usage of e-learning communication tools: A study from the learners’ perspective in Hong Kong. International Journal of Training and Development, 12(3), 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ifinedo, P. (2006). Acceptance and continuance intention of web-based learning technologies (WLT) use among university students in a Baltic country. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 23(6), 1–20.Google Scholar
  28. Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klobas, J. E. (1995). Beyond information quality: Fitness for purpose and electronic information resource use. Journal of Information Science, 21(2), 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McKinney, D., Dyck, J. L., & Luber, E. S. (2009). iTunes University and the classroom: Can podcasts replace professors? Computers & Education, 52(3), 617–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moss, N. D., O’Connor, E. L., & White, K. M. (2010). Psychosocial predictors of the use of enhanced podcasting in student learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 302–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan, Y. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48(2), 250–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nunnally, Y. J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  35. Scutter, S., Stupans, I., Sawyer, T., & King, S. (2010). How do students use podcasts to support learning? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 180–191.Google Scholar
  36. Selim, H. M. (2003). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Computers & Education, 40(4), 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stephenson, J. E., Brown, C., & Griffin, D. K. (2009). Electronic delivery of lectures in the university environment: An empirical comparison of three delivery styles. Computers & Education, 50(3), 640–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Subramanian, G. H. (1994). A replication of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Decisions Sciences Journal, 25(5–6), 863–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor, M. Z. (2009). Podcast lectures as a primary teaching technology: Results of a one-year trial. Journal of Political Science Education, 5(2), 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Traphagan, T., Kuscera, J. V., & Kishi, K. (2010). Impact of class lecture webcasting on attendance and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zupancic, B., & Horz, H. (2002). Lecture recording and its use in a traditional university course. Paper presented at the annual joint conference integrating technology into computer science education, Aarhus, Denmark. Retrieved August 22, 2010 from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=544424.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Instructional Psychology and TechnologyKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options